The Impact of Trust on the Willingness of Co-Tenancy Behavior: Evidence from China

Figures & data

Figure 1 Research theoretical model.

Table 1 Variables Measurement Scale

Variables	Code	Items	Sources of Scale
Trust	A1	I usually have faith in roommates.	^Citation44,Citation45 Ridings et al This research
	A2	I tend to rely on my roommates.
	A3	I think human nature can be reliant.
	A4	I usually trust others unless they give me a reason to distrust them.
	A5	I think my roommates are generally reliable.
the Willingness of Co-tenancy Behavior (WOCB)	B1	I think it is convenient and feasible to choose co-tenancy.	This research^Citation46,Citation48
	B2	Compared with living alone, I prefer to rent a houses with others.
	B3	Even if my funds permit, I prefer to continue co-tenancy.
	B4	I am willing to rent a houses with others.
	B5	I like the feeling of co-tenancy.
	B6	I am willing to recommend the co-tenancy lifestyle to others.
	B7	If my friend is considering co-tenancy, I will tell them the co-tenancy information.
Positive Emotion (PE)	C1	I have endless energy.	Watson et al (1988) Kammann&Flett ^Citation49 This research
	C2	I feel that I can do anything I want.
	C3	I like myself.
	C4	My thoughts are clear and creative.
	C5	I feel that people love me and trust me.
	C6	I feel close to the people around me.
	C7	My life is moving in the direction I want.
	C8	I often smile and laugh
	C9	I can handle anything that happens.
	C10	My future is bright.
Satisfaction	D1	My co-tenancy life is close to the ideal state in many aspects.	[SWLS] This research^Citation50
	D2	My co-tenancy living conditions are very superior.
	D3	I am very satisfied with my co-tenancy life.
	D4	I have got what I want most in my life.
	D5	If I can choose my life again, I will not make any changes.
Relationship Strength	E1	I have similarities with my roommates.	This research^Citation51,Citation52
	E2	I am familiar with my roommates.
	E3	When roommates are in trouble, I will try my best to help them out.
	E4	I will discuss personal topics with my roommates.
	E5	I am willing to make friends with my roommates.

Table 2 Sample Reliability Analysis

Variable	Cronbach’s Alpha	Number of Items
Trust	0.895	5
Relationship Strength (RS)	0.881	5
The Willingness of Co-tenancy Behavior (WOCB)	0.933	7
Satisfaction	0.881	5
Positive Emotion (PE)	0.924	10
Total (525)	0.971	32

Table 3 Samples Validity Analysis

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Sufficiency		0.973
Sphericity test of Bartlett	Approximate chi-square	18,476.420
	Df	820
	Sig.	0.000

Table 4 Pearson Correlation Between Variables (N=525)

	Mean	SD	Trust	RS	Satisfaction	PE	MI	DOC	WOCB
Trust	3.981	0.768	1
RS	4.023	0.718	0.684**	1
Satisfaction	3.922	0.791	0.637**	0.779**	1
PE	4.025	0.688	0.698**	0.728**	0.776**	1
MI	3.469	1.104	0.272**	0.273**	0.345**	0.362**	1
Time	3.832	1.001	0.433**	0.466**	0.494**	0.506**	0.499**	1
WOCB	3.969	0.817	0.662**	0.782**	0.828**	0.755**	0.321**	0.476**	1

Note: Significance level **p<0.01.

Abbreviations: RS, relationship strength; PE, positive emotions; MI, monthly income; DOC, duration of co-tenancy; WOCB, the willingness of co-tenancy behavior.

Table 5 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis Between Variables (n=525)

	Layer 1				Layer 2				Layer 3
	b	se	t	p	b	se	t	p	b	se	t	p
Constant	4.003**	0.209	19.159	0	1.219**	0.209	5.83	0	0.277	0.175	1.58	0.115
Gender	−0.133	0.077	−1.723	0.086	−0.099	0.058	−1.7	0.09	−0.085	0.046	−1.844	0.066
Education	0.002	0.047	0.041	0.967	−0.019	0.035	−0.545	0.586	−0.032	0.028	−1.149	0.251
Age	0.004	0.017	0.209	0.834	0.011	0.013	0.882	0.378	−0.004	0.01	−0.407	0.684
Ms	0.154	0.088	1.763	0.079	0.112	0.066	1.704	0.089	0.099	0.052	1.883	0.06
Occupation	−0.024	0.029	−0.806	0.421	−0.016	0.022	−0.717	0.473	−0.016	0.018	−0.932	0.352
Trust					0.702**	0.035	20.122	0	0.250**	0.038	6.537	0
RS									0.705**	0.041	17.251	0
R ^2	0.012				0.445				0.648
F	F (5,519) =1.252, p=0.284				F (6,518) =69.338, p=0.000				F (7,517) =135.972, p=0.000

Notes: Dependent variable: the willingness of co-tenancy behavior (WOCB). Significance level ** p<0.01.

Abbreviations: MS, marital status; RS, relationship strength; PE, positive emotions; MI, monthly income; WOCB, the willingness of co-tenancy behavior; se, standard error.

Table 6 Analysis of Regulatory Effect Results-Monthly Income (MI) (n=525)

	Model 1				Model 2				Model 3
	b	se	t	p	b	se	t	p	b	se	t	p
Constant	4.012	0.157	25.606	0.000**	4.052	0.154	26.233	0.000**	4.076	0.154	26.512	0.000**
Gender	−0.099	0.058	−1.700	0.090	−0.076	0.057	−1.323	0.187	−0.082	0.057	−1.444	0.149
Education	−0.019	0.035	−0.545	0.586	−0.026	0.034	−0.745	0.457	−0.022	0.034	−0.651	0.515
Age	0.011	0.013	0.882	0.378	0.014	0.012	1.091	0.276	0.013	0.012	1.059	0.290
MS	0.112	0.066	1.704	0.089	0.063	0.066	0.957	0.339	0.055	0.065	0.847	0.398
Occupation	−0.016	0.022	−0.717	0.473	−0.018	0.022	−0.811	0.418	−0.014	0.022	−0.666	0.506
Trust	0.702	0.035	20.122	0.000**	0.661	0.036	18.563	0.000**	0.641	0.036	17.737	0.000**
MI					0.107	0.025	4.239	0.000**	0.134	0.027	4.968	0.000**
Trust * MI									−0.090	0.033	−2.754	0.006**
R ^2	0.445				0.464				0.472
F	F (6,518) =69.338, p=0.000				F (7,517) =63.945, p=0.000				F (8,516) =57.613, p=0.000

Notes: Dependent variable: the willingness of co-tenancy behavior (WOCB). Significance level ** p<0.01.

Abbreviations: MS, marital status; MI, monthly income; se, standard error.

Figure 2 Simple slope diagram of the regulatory of monthly income.

Table 7 Analysis of Regulatory Effect Results-DOC (n=525)

	Model 1				Model 2				Model 3
	b	se	t	p	b	se	t	p	b	se	t	p
Constant	4.012	0.157	25.606	0.000**	3.931	0.151	25.949	0.000**	3.962	0.152	26.073	0.000**
Gender	−0.099	0.058	−1.700	0.090	−0.057	0.056	−1.010	0.313	−0.070	0.057	−1.230	0.219
Education	−0.019	0.035	−0.545	0.586	−0.011	0.034	−0.338	0.736	−0.011	0.034	−0.331	0.741
Age	0.011	0.013	0.882	0.378	0.015	0.012	1.193	0.233	0.015	0.012	1.263	0.207
MS	0.112	0.066	1.704	0.089	0.079	0.064	1.246	0.213	0.082	0.063	1.297	0.195
Occupation	−0.016	0.022	−0.717	0.473	−0.004	0.021	−0.192	0.848	−0.005	0.021	−0.222	0.824
Trust	0.702	0.035	20.122	0.000**	0.599	0.037	16.068	0.000**	0.597	0.037	16.052	0.000**
DOC					0.185	0.029	6.396	0.000**	0.182	0.029	6.292	0.000**
Trust * DOC									−0.061	0.032	−1.922	0.055
R ^2	0.445				0.486				0.490
F	F (6,518) =69.338, p=0.000				F (7,517) =69.855, p=0.000				F (8,516) =61.903, p=0.000

Notes: Dependent variable: the willingness of co-tenancy behavior (WOCB). Significance level ** p<0.01.

Abbreviations: MS, marital status; DOC, duration of co-tenancy; se, standard error.

Table 8 Analysis of Regulatory Effect Results-Satisfaction (n=525)

	Model 1				Model 2				Model 3
	b	se	t	p	b	se	t	p	b	se	t	p
constant	4.022	0.023	175.870	0.000**	4.022	0.018	221.860	0.000**	4.024	0.021	188.888	0.000**
Trust	0.640	0.030	21.451	0.000**	0.296	0.031	9.648	0.000**	0.296	0.031	9.634	0.000**
Satisfaction					0.524	0.030	17.615	0.000**	0.524	0.030	17.569	0.000**
Trust * Satisfaction									−0.003	0.029	−0.101	0.920
R ^2	0.468				0.666				0.666
F	F (1,523)=460.157,p=0.000				F (2,522)=521.289,p=0.000				F (3,521)=346.871,p=0.000

Notes: Dependent variable: relationship strength (RS). Significance level ** p<0.01. se, standard error.

Table 9 Test of the Mediating Effect: PE and RS

Mediation Path	Boot SE	Effect	t	p	95% BootLLCI-BootULCI	Conclusion
Trust—PE—WOCB	0.043	0.409	13.865	0.000	[0.324, 0.491]	Significant
Trust—RS—WOCB	0.063	0.254	4.003	0.0000	[0.129, 0.378]	Significant

Abbreviations: PE, positive emotion; RS, relationship strength; SE, standard error.

Figure 3 Research theoretical model (Final).

Table 10 The Number of Factor

Factor	Quantity
Trust	5
WOCB	7
Relationship strength	5
Positive emotion	10
Total	27
The number of Sample	525

Table 11 AVE and CR Index Results in the Model a

Factor	AVE	CR
Trust	0.634	0.896
The Willingness of Co-tenancy Behavior	0.670	0.934
Relationship strength	0.598	0.881
Positive emotion	0.554	0.925

Table 12 Summary Table of Model Regression Coefficient

X	→	Y	Non-Standardized Path Coefficient	se	z	p	Standardized Path Coefficient
Trust	→	RS	0.790	0.051	15.353	0.000	0.807
RS	→	WOCB	0.574	0.048	12.006	0.000	0.587
Trust	→	PE	0.784	0.060	13.168	0.000	0.797
PE	→	WOCB	0.360	0.044	8.259	0.000	0.371

Note: → indicates the path influence relationship.

Abbreviations: RS, relationship strength; PE, positive emotion; WOCB, the willingness of co-tenancy behavior; se, standard error.

Table 13 The Result of Measurement Expression Relationship

X	→	Y	NLF	se	z	p	SLF
I usually have faith in roommates.	→	Trust	1.000	-	-	-	0.769
I tend to rely on my roommates.	→	Trust	1.024	0.057	17.943	0.000	0.751
I think human nature can be reliant.	→	Trust	1.129	0.056	20.069	0.000	0.826
I usually trust others unless they give me a reason to distrust them.	→	Trust	0.960	0.053	17.956	0.000	0.752
I think my roommates are generally reliable.	→	Trust	1.106	0.054	20.662	0.000	0.846
I think it is convenient and feasible to choose co-tenancy.	→	WOCB	1.000	-	-	-	0.771
Compared with living alone, I prefer to rent a houses with others.	→	WOCB	1.144	0.059	19.382	0.000	0.787
Even if my funds permit, I prefer to continue co-tenancy.	→	WOCB	1.266	0.062	20.571	0.000	0.826
I am willing to rent a houses with others.	→	WOCB	1.209	0.058	20.865	0.000	0.835
I like the feeling of co-tenancy.	→	WOCB	1.200	0.058	20.521	0.000	0.824
I am willing to recommend the co-tenancy lifestyle to others.	→	WOCB	1.143	0.059	19.518	0.000	0.791
If my friend is considering co-tenancy, I will tell them the co-tenancy information.	→	WOCB	1.225	0.058	21.184	0.000	0.845
I have similarities with my roommates.	→	RS	1.000	–	–	–	0.769
I am familiar with my roommates.	→	RS	0.966	0.055	17.599	0.000	0.745
When roommates are in trouble, I will try my best to help them out.	→	RS	0.979	0.054	18.095	0.000	0.763
I will discuss personal topics with my roommates.	→	RS	1.007	0.054	18.492	0.000	0.777
I am willing to make friends with my roommates.	→	RS	1.035	0.053	19.481	0.000	0.812
I have endless energy.	→	PE	1.000	–	–	–	0.639
I feel that I can do anything I want.	→	PE	1.135	0.076	14.997	0.000	0.763
I like myself.	→	PE	0.988	0.066	15.014	0.000	0.765
My thoughts are clear and creative.	→	PE	0.905	0.060	15.116	0.000	0.771
I feel that people love me and trust me.	→	PE	0.957	0.064	15.064	0.000	0.768
I feel close to the people around me.	→	PE	0.946	0.063	14.950	0.000	0.760
My life is moving in the direction I want.	→	PE	0.936	0.063	14.934	0.000	0.759
I often smile and laugh	→	PE	0.937	0.063	14.850	0.000	0.754
I can handle anything that happens.	→	PE	1.021	0.068	15.112	0.000	0.771
My future is bright.	→	PE	0.914	0.063	14.535	0.000	0.734

Note: → the measurement relationship.

Abbreviations: RS, relationship strength; PE, positive emotion; WOCB, the willingness of co-tenancy behavior; NLF, non-standardized load factor; SLF, standardized load factor; se, standard error.

Table 14 Fitting Index of Structural Model

Fitting Index	Model	Boundary
Absolute fit measures
Chi-square(χ2)	1171.348	-
Degree of Freedom	320	-
Root mean square residual (RMSEA)	0.071**	<0.10
Incremental fit measures
Tucker-Lewis index (TLI)	0.911**	>0.90
Normed fit index (NFI)	0.892**	The bigger the better.
SRMR	0.058**	<0.10
Comparative fit index (CFI)	0.919**	>0.90
Parsimonious fit measures
Parsimonious normed fit index (PNFI)	0.813*	The bigger the better.
Parsimonious goodness-of-fit index (PGFI)	0.706*	The bigger the better.

Notes: Acceptability: * (fair), ** (good).

Brown TJ, Barry TE, Dacin PA, Gunst RF. Spreading the word: investigating antecedents of consumers’ positive word-of-mouth intentions and behaviors in a retailing context. J Acad Marketing Sci. 2005;33(2):123–138. doi:10.1177/0092070304268417

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sun T, Youn S, Wu G, Kuntaraporn M. Online word-of-mouth (or mouse): an exploration of its antecedents and consequences. J Comp Med Commun. 2006;11(4):1104–1127. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00310.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Taylor S, Todd P. Assessing IT usage: the role of prior experience. MIS Quarterly. 1995;19(4):561–570. doi:10.2307/249633

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S. The satisfaction with life scale. J Pers Assess. 1985;49(1):71–75. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Frenzen JK, David HL. Purchasing behavior in embedded markets. J Consumer Res. 1990;17(1):1~12. doi:10.1086/208532

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gilly MC, Graham JL, Wolfinbarger MF, Yale LJ. A dyadic study of interpersonal information search. J Acad Marketing Sci. 1998;26(2):83–100. doi:10.1177/0092070398262001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hair JF, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. PLS‐SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J Marketing Theory Pract. 2011;19(2):139–152. doi:10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202

 Google Scholar

Kock N, Hadaya P. Minimum sample size estimation in PLS‐SEM: the inverse square root and gamma‐exponential methods. Inf Syst J. 2018;28(1):227–261. doi:10.1111/isj.12131

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar